weeks and film festivals in Amsterdam and Vancouver in
fostering innovation
ROSA KOETSENRUIJTER, UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM
ABSTRACT
The role of temporal economic phenomena, such as film festivals and fashion weeks, in the field of cultural production is manifold. Drawing upon qualitative empirical research, this paper presents a view on festivals as protective institutional environments where creators can experiment materially and semantically without being pressured by isomorphic parameters and market forces. Through a comparative, small-N study of four festivals – two film festivals and two fashion weeks – in respectively Amsterdam and Vancouver, the innovative potential of temporal economic phenomena is studied. Via qualitative interviews this study has found that festivals appear to be a central node in the cultural field. Not only do they constitute spatially and temporarily bounded places where the latest/newest products and trends are showcased, as well they appear to bring together different, spatially dispersed key actors from within the field to contribute to the bridging, accumulation and conversion of social, economic and cultural capital. Furthermore, the festivals appear to be a laboratory where, to some extent, new and innovative ideas and creative experiments are presented to people within the field and to the general public. As such festivals play a part in supporting and fostering innovation within the industry. However, due to both internal pressures and external developments the role of festivals as bearers of innovation, protectors from isomorphic and market pressures and institutions for the development and internalization of Habitus is being challenged.
KEY WORDS: innovation, cultural industries, film festivals, fashion weeks, field of cultural production, isomorphic pressures
INTRODUCTION
“A pathbreaking gatekeeper can achieve an innovation by searching out a new class of artists or presenting them to a previously unserved audience.” (Caves, 2000: 202)
In the week before the 90th annual Academy Awards ceremony I watched Get Out, a comedy horror film by Jordan Peele, where issues of modern day racism take centre stage. Its description indicates that this film does not pertain to the traditional parameters of a horror film. While Peele had successfully been addressing issues of banal racism within the comedy genre for quite some time, this horror film marked his cinematic debut as a director. By bridging humour and societal relevance the director attempted to cross the boundaries of the horror genre. The fact that Peele had for long been humorously criticizing certain societal norms and relations, perhaps granted him the trust from various agents to actually debut with this innovative film. While Get Out screened in mainstream theatres, won one Oscar (for Best Original Screenplay) and was nominated for three more, such films that challenge genres or the norm often tend to be confined to the safe bounds of film festivals.
Providing a safe environment wherein creators can experiment, cross boundaries or challenge set parameters is one of the roles that festivals or so-called temporary economic phenomena aim to fulfill (Brandellero and Kloosterman, 2010). Power and Jansson (2008) and Maskell et al. (2006) deem these spatially concentrated and short-lived/temporal events with a specific sectoral specialization a locus where supply and demand are concentrated and where various agents come together to construct social relations of trust and cooperation, and to exchange products, services, information and knowledge. In the research conducted, the role of film festivals and fashion weeks as institutional environments in which creators and producers of cultural products are protected from isomorphic pressures and market forces and through which innovation can be fostered by experimentation (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Brandellero and Kloosterman, 2010; Alvarez et al., 2005) is central.
This research into processes of innovation within the cultural industries and the role of festivals therein, is framed within Bourdieu’s notion of the cultural field of production. Seeing that festivals can be considered as a temporal crystallization of the field where the latest/newest products and trends are presented and where the various actors from within the field are brought together in order to build social capital, transfer knowledge and connect economic and cultural capital, they appear to be central nodes in the cultural fields of film and fashion production. Furthermore, festivals can be seen as laboratories and filter mechanisms where new and innovative ideas and creative experiments are curated and then presented to people within the field and to the general public. As such, festivals contribute to supporting and fostering innovation within the industry.
However, both fashion and film are confronted with contemporary challenges that put pressure on the functioning of their respective fields of production. At present, the negative impacts of fashion production on the environment and the livelihoods of garment producers are becoming ever more apparent, as several interviewees have described. In the film industry, aside from the wide-ranging implications of the #metoo debate, technological innovations and digitization processes are putting ever more pressure on the traditional format of showcasing films in theatres. The question then arises whether film festivals and fashion weeks are still to be considered central and relevant nodes in the highly dynamic and changing fields of cultural production. Can these institutions still fulfill their role as laboratories for experiment and as a filter mechanisms if their traditional format is challenged by ‘external’ developments? By use of four cases – two film festivals and two fashion weeks in respectively Amsterdam and Vancouver – the contemporary role of these institutions in processes of innovation is investigated additional to their position and role within the cultural field.
Answering these questions also requires unraveling the meaning of innovation within the cultural industries. Innovation has come to be a rather nebulous term which currently seems to stand for anything slightly new. Yet, innovation within the cultural industries seems to be fairly different from innovation in let’s say the automotive industry given the highly symbolic and aesthetic values
and meanings imbued in cultural products and services. These characteristics make an in principle measurable concept hard to determine. While innovation in this field also seems to be associated with technological and material advances (e.g. new cameras, Virtual Reality (VR) and 3D printing) renewal in relation to content, symbolism, aesthetics and the way in which a message is conveyed are vastly relevant in industries that are marked by these characteristics.
The following section will start by succinctly setting out Bourdieu’s theory of the field of cultural production. Additional attention will be paid the notion of innovation within the cultural industries. The section thereafter centres on the selection of the four empirical cases (the Amsterdam Fashion Week, the International Documentary Festival Amsterdam, the Vancouver International Film Festival and Vancouver Fashion Week) that inform this research. Then, the qualitative research methodology utilized in this research will be explicated. The fourth section will present the findings of this research on innovation in the cultural industries and the supportive role of festivals therein. I will conclude with a discussion on the relevance of festivals as bearers of innovation and their future position in the field of cultural production.
BOURDIEU’S FIELD OF CULTURAL PRODUCTION
In the field of cultural production, products and services are produced that are characterized by a high symbolic/aesthetic value and a significant input of high levels of intellect and empathy (Scott, 2006). These products and services are marked by a so-called ‘nobody knows property’, meaning that due to the volatility of consumer tastes, the demand for these kinds of goods and services is rather uncertain (Caves, 2000). According to Bourdieu’s action theory, such fields are organized and structured by both an external force (the market) and an internal force (the cultural or the creative sphere). Hence, for an actor to be ‘successful’ – given the high experiential and symbolic value of cultural products this is highly subjective – his or her work should thus be creative as well as marketable. In the production of these goods and services – by Bourdieu termed ‘social action’ – actors combine their variegated set of capitals (social, cultural and economic). This social action, in
its turn, is shaped by two forces: an internal one (Habitus) and an external one (the field of cultural production). As such, actors are constantly ‘moving’ between market and culture and are simultaneously combining internal and external forces to create the cultural goods and services (Bourdieu 1996, 1998; D’Ovidio, 2015; D’Ovidio and Haddock, 2010; Becker and Pessin, 2006).
Individual actors such as film makers and fashion designers are not the only ‘players’ existing within the field. A cultural field is composed of various institutions (e.g. festivals, schools), organizations (brands, production studios), people (critics) and cultural production (i.e. symbols and products) which are horizontally and qualitatively positioned (Bourdieu 1996, 1998; D’Ovidio, 2015; D’Ovidio and Haddock, 2010; Becker and Pessin, 2006). In the field of fashion, renowned fashion houses (e.g. Chanel, Gucci and Dior), large brands (e.g. Zara, H&M) and established institutions (e.g. Paris, London, Milan and New York Fashion Week) hold a dominant and powerful position. Within the field of film, the big production studios in Hollywood (e.g. Universal, Paramount and Walt Disney) and the established upper-tier film festivals such as the ones in Cannes, Berlin, Venice and Toronto are highly influential. These dominant and powerful ‘players’ largely set the parameters in terms of an accepted set of values regarding the aesthetics of the final product as the structure of the production processes. The various actors in the field are, hence, confronted with isomorphic pressures – which tend to be a combination of intrinsic cultural values and market forces – to conform and comply to the field hierarchy and its set parameters, values and expectations (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Alvarez et al., 2005). As such, these dominant field actors determine the entry barriers of the field for newcomers. The cultural products and services created by newcomers are held against the established parameters extant in the field by various curational institutions that hold the power to recognize, approve and filter new individual actors and their creations. Thence, the isomorphic pressures might limit innovative potential as newcomers feel compelled to conform and comply rather than deviate, given that conformity increases their chances of market success.
This notion of the field is in essence rather placeless. Therefore, D’Ovidio (2015) calls for applying the conceptualization to a place in order to develop a spatialized notion of the field – as she does so herself by investigating fashion systems in London and Milan. In literature, festivals (e.g. film festivals and fashion weeks) are regarded as filter mechanisms that valorize both final products and the creators based on aesthetic quality, habitus and their set of capitals (Power and Jansson, 2008; Maskell et al., 2006; Brandellero and Kloosterman, 2010; Lampel and Meyer, 2008: 1028-1029; Williams et al., 2013; Weller, 2008; Rekers, 2016) and hence allow for newcomers to enter the field. The recognition by established institutions adds value to the product and creator on the (international) market (Simona Segre, 2005; Weller, 2008).
The curational and valorization processes that transpire at festivals is interrelated with the fact that at these events a broad array of field ‘players’ are present (Wu, 2009; Power and Jansson, 2008; Jansson and Hracs, 2018). Festivals are as such a temporary crystallization of the field concentrated in a certain space where cultural products and their producers are to be seen and valued.
INNOVATION IN THE CULTURAL INDUSTRIES
Innovation is often conceptualized in a Schumpeterian, linear and technological manner, whereby the implementation of a new product or production process, the opening up of new markets, the usage of a new material or a new mode of organization is considered to be innovative and thus relatively ‘better’ (Wijngaarden et al., 2016). Innovation in the cultural industries is, however, different as the survival of many of these industries depends on continuous product differentiation, uniqueness and novelty. Moreover, given that the value of cultural goods and services lies in their aesthetic, symbolic and experiential quality, the determination of a product or service being innovative is highly subjective as a certain ‘new’ fashion style or cinematographic language is not objectively ‘better’ (Brandellero and Kloosterman, 2010). More specific definitions of innovation in the cultural industries range from a radical departure from existing conventions by implementing
something (product, process, input) completely new (see Becker, 1982; Castañer and Campos, 2002) to more incremental, soft and hidden transformations within the production process and output (see Miles and Green, 2008; Stoneman, 2009; Caves, 2000; Pratt and Gornostaeva, 2009). According to Jones et al. (2015) these, be it radical or incremental, changes occur in the semiotic codes of final products (i.e. the signifiers of symbolic values that consumers derive from cultural products) and/or the material bases (i.e. materials, technologies and socio-technical systems that enable the production and consumption of cultural products). In cultural fields where the expectations and semiotic and material parameters are set by dominant agents, innovation additionally concerns a certain level of non-conformity/non-conventionality (Patriotta and Hirsch, 2016; DiMaggio and Stenberg, 1985). Cappetta et al. (2006) argue that such innovations within these industries tend to come from newcomers to the field since they have not fully acquired the established Habitus and are thus not yet bounded by inertial frames and existing routines and expectations.
A deviation from the mainstream parameters in the field further enhances the nobody knows property of innovative cultural goods and services. Through departing from the set norms, consumer expectations are challenged and hence the marketability of the innovative goods and services is even more uncertain (Lampel and Meyer, 2008: 1028-1029; Brandellero and Kloosterman, 2010). Hence, a protective institutional framework is required that shields individual creativity and initiative from the isomorphic pressures of the field and market forces, while also valorizes and recognizes these innovations as valuable for the field and consumers (ibid.). Festivals are regarded as such a safe laboratory where innovations can come to being, exist and valorized, and thence, they appear important institutions in processes of cultural innovation.
CASE DESCRIPTION AND SELECTION
Although cultural industries are an ambiguous concept to some degree, there is consensus that it concerns the production and consumption of goods and services of high symbolic/aesthetic value, the input of high levels of intellect and empathy. More so, these type of industries contribute
significantly to national income and employment, especially on the level of cities as that is where localized clusters exist wherein technical know-how and human intellect are aggregated (Scott, 2017; Scott, 2006). Numbers on the cultural industries in respectively Amsterdam and Vancouver show that these cities are exemplary of such an urban aggregation of cultural employment and activities (for Amsterdam see O+S, 2014; Rutten and Koops, 2014; LISA, 2014 cf. Rutten and Koops, 2014; for Vancouver see Statistics Canada, 2016; Creative BC, n.d.; City of Vancouver, 2016).
For this research the film and fashion industry have been selected as they represent rather contrasting cultural industries. Evidently, these two industries, and the respective festivals, differ significantly. Take for example the great financial pressure of seasonal production, large orders and organizing a runway show with which fashion designers are confronted, while the production of film has in some ways become cheaper and easier with the democratization and increasing accessibility of film technology. However, despite the significant differences between these two industries, both film and fashion are characterized by high symbolic/aesthetic value, the input of creativity and high human capital, and commercial trade on a global market; characteristics that are considered to be typical of the cultural industries (see Power and Scott, 2005: 3). Furthermore, the role of festivals in these industries is described in a similar manner: as a temporal and spatial concentration of a broad array of people from within the industry and a place where valorization/curation occurs (Power and Jansson, 2008; Maskell et al., 2006; Brandellero and Kloosterman, 2010; Lampel and Meyer, 2008: 1028-1029; Williams et al., 2013; Weller, 2008; Rekers, 2016)).
To gain a better understanding of the role of festivals in processes of innovation and their position in the field of fashion and film production, four festivals have been selected as empirical cases: Amsterdam Fashion Week (AFW), the International Documentary Festival Amsterdam (IDFA), Vancouver Fashion Week (VFW) and the Vancouver International Film Festival (VIFF). Both Amsterdam and Vancouver display a cognitive-cultural economic profile, making them typical cases of advanced urban economies and the cultural industries within these economies. Furthermore,
these cities are comparable in housing a cosmopolitan audience for the consumption of cultural industries that is part of the global cultural elite (Yin, 2009; Gerring, 2006, Florida, 2005).
The four cases that have been selected within each of these two cities are different cases (Gerring, 2006), differing in their orientation, scope and scale. Related to this, and more importantly, the empirical research conducted set out to investigate whether the cases differed regarding the extent to which they succeed in fostering innovation and supporting emerging creators.
The two cases in Vancouver are of a relatively smaller scale and scope compared to those in Amsterdam. Despite the differences, the additive value of this small-N case comparison lies in the following: on the one hand such an analysis can go into detail about the specifics of how each festival fosters innovation and allows newcomers entrance to the field, while on the other, it can regard innovation in the cultural industries and the role of festivals herein more generally (Abbott, 2004).
Amsterdam
In 1988, the International Documentary Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) was established and over the years this festival has grown to be the largest and most renowned festival within its genre. Over the course of 12 days, the festival screens over 300 films which attract an international audience. In 2016, the festival counted 280 000 visitors, and the broad array of documentaries were showcased at 14 locations around the city of Amsterdam. Apart from presenting a diverse, societally relevant and qualitative array of films (ISSUU, 2017), the festival organizes various industry events where a plethora of people can meet, network and do business, and where newcomers can find their way into the industry. In 2016, the festival attracted 3100 international guests (i.e. producers, directors, funding agencies) to these events. Similar to many festivals, the IDFA also hosts eight competitions awarding film makers and their work. Another part of IDFA’s program, the IDFA DocLab, a
platform that seeks to explore the relationship between (technological) innovation and the documentary genre, depicts that the festival is indeed concerned with innovation within the industry. All of these IDFA events are in part made possible by a myriad of partners that support the festival, ranging from European, national and local government agencies, to media partners and to production companies (ISSUU, 2017).
The first fashion weeks in Amsterdam were organized in 1947 by the Nederlandse Damesconfectie Industrie (Dutch ladies [sic] confectionary industry). These bi-annual fashion weeks were held until the late 1950s when the Dutch confectionary industry more or less ceased to exist as manufacturing of clothes shifted to low-wage countries. The Amsterdam Fashion Week (AFW) in its current form was first organized in 2004 with the aim of putting Amsterdam on the map as an international fashion capital (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Fashion_Week, n.d; Amsterdam Fashion Week, n.d.). The event, which is held twice a year, once in July for the Spring/Summer edition and once in January for the Fall/Winter edition, centres around Dutch and Belgian fashion Design. The goal of AFW is to bridge the gap between art and commerce, to lift the Dutch and Belgian fashion industry to a global level, and to discover and celebrate young talent (Amsterdam Fashion Week, n.d.). The organization foresees to fulfill this by hosting runway shows, expositions and related events such as Fashion Lab, Future Generation and Lichting, where established designers as well as newcomers have the opportunity to showcase their designs. According to Guntlisbergen (2016), the Amsterdam Fashion Week attracts around 20 000 to 25 000 visitors (designers, (inter)national press and ‘regular public’) to the city. Per season, AFW generates approximately 27.5 million euros of revenue, of which around 81 per cent is spent on the organizations, brands and event locations that support the event. The City of Amsterdam collects the remaining approximate 19 per cent in the form of taxes.
Vancouver
Since 1982, The Greater Vancouver International Film Festival Society organizes a yearly film festival in the city of Vancouver. Over the course of two weeks, towards the end of September and the beginning in October, approximately 350 films are showcased in seven theatres around town. The festival yearly attracts around 140 000 visitors (Tourism Vancouver, n.d.) who come to watch the broad array of national and international films within different genres ranging from drama to documentary. The number of films screened and the number of spectators attracted makes it one of the five biggest film festivals in North America. According to the festival’s mission statement, what sets the Vancouver film festival apart from other festivals is their large selection of Asian films (one of the largest outside of that region), their documentary segment and them being one of the biggest platforms for Canadian films in the world (VIFF, n.d.). Since 2016, the festival has restructured and has moved away from its traditional format of film programming. Currently, the festival hosts, aside from the film screenings, industry events, interactive Q&A’s and educational sessions. Just as the IDFA, the VIFF also awards multiple film makers for their work (VIFF, n.d.).
In 2001, Jamal Abdourahman established the Vancouver Fashion Week (VFW). This fashion week is a bi-annual event showcasing talented and emerging designers as well as already established
designers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Fashion_Week, n.d.; Vancouver Fashion Week,
n.d.). In terms of audience the VFW focuses on attracting renowned international press and the general public, rather than solely national press and invitation-only guests from within the industry which differentiates it from other fashion weeks such as the one in Amsterdam. Given their position on the annual ‘fashion week calendar’ VFW does not attract too many buyers (i.e. retailers). Since October 2017, VFW also runs the Global Fashion Collective. This platform supports emerging designers by providing them with the ability to showcase their work at other international fashion weeks such as Tokyo Fashion Week and New York Fashion Week (Vancouver Fashion Week, n.d.; Global Fashion Collective, n.d.).
METHODOLOGY
This research on the role of festivals in processes of innovation in the cultural field is conducted through a small-N analysis (Abbott, 2004) of four cases in respectively Amsterdam and Vancouver. The four cases in the two cities are different cases seeing that the differ in their respective cultural field (film and fashion) and in their scope, scale, position in the field, and orientation. Therefore, the aim of this small-N comparative research design is to explore both similarities and contrasts between these cases related to the role of festivals in the film and fashion field, and the differences and similarities regarding the role of these festivals in innovation (ibid.).
The discussion on the role of festivals in the cultural field and the innovative potential of these events, draws upon empirical data collected through 20 semi-structured interviews with people with expert knowledge of either the film or the fashion industry, between January and May 2018. All interviewees fulfill various roles in the respective fields of cultural production as fashion and film critics, film makers, directors, producers, production designers, film award judges, festival visitors, designers, teachers/lecturers, fashion consultants, runway show producers, festival programmers, (former) fashion week directors, business advisors and film fund employees. The interviews were conducted using a common scheme of questions/topics. However, there was flexibility to explore other topics of interest that emerged during the interviews. The interviewees were asked a range of questions concerning the meaning of innovation in the film/fashion industry, the role of festivals in regards to processes of innovation and the role of festivals regarding the future careers of new and emerging talents. All 20 interviews were recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were then coded based around the ‘key themes and common categories emerging from the data, considered in relation to the overall theoretical framework’ (Watson, 2013: 331-332; Bryman, 2012)
It turned out that fashion and film critics in the Vancouver case, film schools in Vancouver and fashion designers and AFW representatives in the Amsterdam case were rather reluctant to be interviewed, I, therefore, had to rely on additional snowball sampling. Nonetheless, when analyzing
the interviews, it became apparent that a certain degree of saturation had been achieved surrounding the topics of interest.
FESTIVALS AS A TEMPORARY CRYSTALLIZATION OF THE FIELD
The production processes and the cultural goods that are produced in both the fields – where internal forces (culture) and external forces (market) are combined in the production of cultural goods and services – of film and fashion are described by the respondents as a reflection of the Zeitgeist of society (Williams et al., 2013). In these fields, a distinction is made by the interviewees between the market and culture as theorized by Bourdieu. Especially in the field of film this distinction appears to become ever more clear as Hollywood films are increasingly developed with the aim of generating large profits, while low-budget and independent film making edges on the other side of the spectrum (i.e. culture) for which the demand is much less certain and hence the chances for making profit are slimmer.
Notwithstanding the gap between market and culture in both the cultural industries, festivals are considered institutions that bring these two segments of the field together. During both fashion weeks and film festivals, a myriad of actors from within the field come together temporarily in space and time. As such, festivals can, indeed, be considered a temporary crystallization of the field. By bringing these various and spatially dispersed actors together, and hence by bridging market and culture, festivals facilitate the following for field actors (and especially new entrants to the field). First and foremost fashion weeks and film festivals are regarded as a showcase platform for film and fashion productions. Through presenting one’s work at these events, festivals allow for the end products but as well the creators themselves to be seen and get noticed by the field and hence, it is a first step in gaining a foothold in the field (Chapain and Stachowiak, 2017). Vancouver Fashion Week, specifically allows for designers to be seen by the international media: ‘It is a great value proposition for our clientele that they get to meet and they get to be seen by most of the international media. So that's something that we offer that other fashion weeks, except the big 4 [London, Milan,
New York and Paris], do not offer.’ (Respondent 6). Respondent 14, a film festival programming director summarized the importance of the congregation of the field concisely:
‘It is about bringing together talent and people from within the industry. This is done though workshops, face-to-face conversations, masterclasses and panel discussions. […] In that way you
open the industry to young people, to newcomers.’
Moreover, for consumers of cultural products as well as other industry actors, the presentation at a festival signifies a stamp of approval. Winning an award at these events even further increases the value of the film makers and designers (Paleo and Wijnberg, 2006).
Second, at both film festivals and fashion weeks, various actors from within the field such as designers, film makers, media, funding agencies, producers, broadcasters and retailers are simultaneously present at the venue but also in the same urban setting which allows for direct face-to-face contact at the festival and outside of the festival venues, making these events a ‘social hub’ (Respondent 10). This contact is considered important in both industries for expanding one’s social capital which is of essence for future projects and collaborations and ‘only actually happens because people come together’ (Respondent 10).
Furthermore, the opportunity to build social capital is regarded as extremely important for gaining access to economic capital as concretely described by a film maker:
‘I got to meet a lot of people [at VIFF] and that helps me. You know, meeting people is always the most important thing for making a film because possibly they have money or possibly they know somebody who can help you make the next project, or they can work with you, or you can work with
The IDFA is in this regard a leading example as it concretely ‘brings ideas and money together at Forum’ (Respondent 14). At Forum, funding institutions are brought into contact with film makers and producers and thus the festival very explicitly aims at bridging market and culture within the field. The other three festivals that have been researched lack such explicit market orientation. As such, as the interviewees have indicated, these festivals are less critical for agents to gain access to economic capital.
Third, festivals facilitate a further development of cultural capital. Through prior education and experience creators enter the field with a certain level of cultural capital (Power and Jansson, 2008). All the four cases present distinct examples of knowledge transfer to film makers and fashion designers through seminars, workshops and industry presentations. Moreover, being in close proximity to fellow film makers and fashion designers and other field agents allows for informal knowledge transfer.
Fourth, festivals selectively provide access to economic capital as the respondents stressed that it is by far not the case for every film maker or designer. As noted before, the building of social capital at concrete events where market and culture are brought together but also film and fashion prizes awarded at the festivals are a way for designers and film makers to acquire economic capital. Gossip as well plays a role herein, as conversing about one’s qualities and skills might make for a funding institution to consider a certain creator.
Finally, film festivals and fashion weeks provide the opportunity for creators to construct Habitus. Film makers and fashion designers can trial their products in the safe environments of festivals, isolated from market pressures as they are not immediately judged based on numbers of visitors and buyers. Festivals allow for creators to receive feedback from established industry actors and media and as such ‘they start establishing some form of professional practice through working and speaking with industry people, no matter how nerve wrecking that might be’ (Respondent 7). The smaller festivals such as AFW, VFW and VIFF are considered ‘ideal’ platforms to trial products and to learn how the industry works. Moreover, gossip, as discussed in the previous paragraph,
appears to play an essential role for acquiring Habitus. However, for designers and film makers to gain a stronger foothold in the field they should look further to larger festivals with a bigger scope and market attachment such as IDFA.
As such, the festivals as temporary setting appear to generate certain agglomeration economies that procure durable resources for film makers and fashion designers. The extent to which these actors are able to profit from these externalities facilitated by the festivals is ‘highly dependent on their own entrepreneurial spirit and drive’ (Respondent 1) and also the extent to which the agents are able to cross the initial entry barriers to these festivals. While both film festivals are openly accessible in sending in a film, film makers have indicated that the chances of getting selected is on the one hand dependent on one’s social capital (i.e. ‘if you know the right people you are likely to get in’ (Respondent 20)) and on the other hand on economic capital. While the financial entry barriers (entry fees) are relatively low at both IDFA and VIFF, they are still existent. The financial entry barriers for both AFW and VFW are deemed a lot higher and are also by some considered as a deterrence for young, starting designers. So while the direct intangibles such as economic and social capital are to be gained through participating in a festival, those are as well exactly the entry barriers to these events and in general to the field.
INNOVATION IN THE FASHION AND FILM INDUSTRY
Innovation is regarded by the respondents as a continuous, complex and multifaceted process that is inherent to the fashion system. This constant drive for newness and/or uniqueness often comes from the fashion designers themselves to stand out and find a niche in the highly competitive fashion field, but it is in some cases also stimulated by the limited financial resources in a greatly expensive industry. The respondents validate the theoretical statement by Patriotta and Hirsch (2016) that innovation in the fashion industry concerns a deviation of the norm or mainstream, be it by not
producing ‘in seasons’, by radically changing a design (which is rare) or by choosing a different presentational format. However, ‘in fashion, sometimes you think of something that is too new, in the sense that it doesn’t work. Fashion, in the end, is also just as much commerce. So if you are too much ahead of the mass, then your product will not catch on and hence you will not be successful.’ (Respondent 2). This statement corroborates literature that describes the fashion system as a balance between market and culture where innovations that deviate too much from the norm risk being disregarded due to a lack of marketability to consumers.
A deviation of the status quo in essence bears on challenging set parameters within the production system. Despite the inherent innovativeness of the fashion system, the vast majority of the respondents considered it a ‘hierarchic and slow system that works according to certain parameters that are difficult to change’ (Respondent 2). The fashion system is considered especially rusty in terms of its unsustainability regarding the ethics of the production processes and the environmental impacts of fashion production processes and products. Hence, the most prominent and perhaps also most important type of developments that are currently at stake in the fashion industry concern these issues. The respondents deem those designers and institutions innovative that ‘not necessarily come up with something completely new […] but that are destructive and as such break open an existing system.’ (Respondent 4, fashion consultant and fashion lecturer). Designers do so by changing the material bases of fashion products (i.e. product and process innovation) to e.g. fabrics that have been made by less chemical processes or by using recycled materials. Realizing a more sustainable and ethical fashion system, however, requires a more radical disruption as per some respondents. The work of innovative designers is a start herein, but it requires as well change on behalf of other institutions within the field (e.g. big brands, fashion weeks).
These changes in fashion products and production processes are as well related to changes in the semiotic codes (i.e. the signifiers of symbolic values that consumers derive from cultural products). Fashion is about telling a story, sending a message and constructing an identity. This changes with time as the Zeitgeist of society changes. Therefore, in a time where issues of ethical
fashion production and sustainability are pertinent in the field, designers change the semiotic codes of the product accordingly.
Just as in fashion, innovation in the film industry is considered an intricate and many-sided process that is continuous and makes ‘for a lively art form’ (Respondent 10). Similar to innovation in the field of fashion, innovation in the film industry concerns a deviation of the mainstream. In terms of semiotic codes, most of the interviewees share the opinion that innovation pertains to the emergence of new cinematographic voices that in one way or another deviate from the mainstream format of storytelling. There is, however, consensus amongst the interviewees that this type of innovation is difficult to measure and rather subjective which validates statements from literature (Brandellero and Kloosterman, 2010). Another form of innovation in the semiotic codes of film relates to the crossing of boundaries and ‘hybrid forms’, be it of genres (e.g. the horror-comedy hybrid by Jordan Peele), art forms (e.g. integrating live music and film) or media (letting the audience vote over the progress of a film through social media during a film screening) (Respondent 11). While a balance between market and culture is similarly important herein, a balance between the deviation from the norm and the quality of storytelling is believed to be critical as well: ‘the content should still match the form’ as per Respondent 14. Apart from these semiotic innovations, several respondents have described the emergence of new funding mechanisms in the film industry such as crowdfunding and actors as Netflix and Amazon that have started to engage in financing film productions, as a recent form of innovation within the field.
Whereas the field of fashion production is currently confronted with issues of sustainability and ethical production, the film industry has seen a reorganization of the field due to technological developments. While film making used to be reserved to a relatively small group that owned the means of film production, nowadays, various technological developments have decreased the costs of the means of film making (e.g. anyone can make a film on their smartphones) and have concurrently increased the flexibility of film making processes. ‘This has led to a democratization of
the media landscape as more people have access to the means to make a film.’ (Respondent 13). According to two film makers even, this ‘technological revolution […] has led to a demise of the craft of film making’ (Respondent 15). Consequently, film makers have to look for new ways to stand out in the field where the amount of films are ever increasing and recognition from peers and dominant actors becomes more important. As clarified before, some film makers will do so by deviating from the stereotypical semiotic codes. Others, however, make use of ‘external’ technological innovations, such as Virtual Reality (VR), to change the presentational format which allows for ‘new forms of storytelling’ (Respondent 14). More generally, the consumption of visual media has changed over the past decade due to digitization and technological advances:
‘Anyone who has their eyes open realizes that the consumption of visual media has changed dramatically in the past five or ten years. […] And I think that a lot of festivals probably find themselves in this slightly existential reflective moment right now, to wonder how they fit in the
future and what that looks like.’ (Respondent 18).
Thus, the fields of both fashion and film production are changing. While the former is being confronted with issues of sustainability and fair production processes, the latter is challenged by technological developments. This begs the question how film festivals and fashion weeks move in the changing fields and whether these institutions are still relevant as protective laboratories where innovations can come to flourish?
ROLE OF FESTIVALS IN PROCESSES OF INNOVATION
As fashion weeks and film festivals are a temporal crystallization of the field where various actors come together, they are eminently the place where conversations and discussions about innovation
in the field can exist. Furthermore, the concentration of field actors in space and time as well allows for sharing ideas and getting inspiration from others which in some cases can lead to new and innovative projects. Most of the interviewees agree, however, that despite the conversations around innovation that occur at these events, both fashion weeks and film festival are rather traditional in their presentational approach. Sticking to the traditional parameters of runway shows and theatrical film screenings ‘does not invite to try out new things, especially not with students who want to be seen by the status quo and who hence conform to the parameters.’ (Respondent 1). As such, the events risk losing their relevance as innovations in these industries require a different presentational format. In the case of film, VR, for example, does not fit the traditional big screen, while in fashion issues of sustainability and technological advances may lead to designers wanting to showcase their ‘collection’ in holograms rather than producing a costly and wasteful runway show.
Whereas fashion weeks are considered by the interviewees as rusty institutions that follow the field rather than a space for innovations that challenge the fashion system, film festivals are seen as more open to innovations in the industry. According to the respondents, film festivals cross boundaries (e.g. South by Southwest that integrates music and film), allow space for the presentation of technological innovations to both the industry and the more general public, and dare to take risks in their programming in terms of cinematography. One film critic and director even noted that film festivals are often the place ‘where innovations are born’ (Respondent 10) given the coming together of all these factors:
‘ […] if we didn't have film festivals, we would really be in trouble. It's really where innovation in film, that's where it really shines’ (Respondent 17).
AMSTERDAM AND VANCOUVER
Film Festivals
The director of programming of the Vancouver International Film Festival describes the festival as a more traditional one as opposed to an innovative festival. However, recently the festival has changed its programming and has introduced a renewed focus on more experimental films. While the VIFF still showcases more traditional narratives and films that travel the festival circuit, it also aims for screening unconventional work that challenges its audiences. Moreover, at festival events aimed at the industry (rather than the general public), film makers, directors, producers, production designers etc. are presented with the opportunity to explore new presentational approaches and new film making technologies.
In opposition to the traditional character of the VIFF, the International Documentary Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) defines innovation as one of its main pillars. This focus on innovation is most prominent in the IDFA DocLab where technological innovations are presented to various agents from within the field but also to the more general public, and where these technological advances such as VR are connected to modes of storytelling. IDFA DocLab also hosts a competition for digital storytelling. An award as such can provide financial incentives for further innovations. Although VIFF does not have such a side-program directed at innovation, various film makers have expressed that the prizes awarded by the VIFF as well stimulate innovation.
Fashion Weeks
The interviewees have indicated that the current developments in the field of fashion require a different presentational approach. The fashion weeks in Amsterdam and Vancouver, however, still stick to the classical model of runway shows which limits their innovative potential and rendering them ‘old-fashioned’ (Respondent 3). The status of Vancouver Fashion Week (VFW) in the field and the scope and budget of the event do not allow for the attraction of big international brands.
However, VFW directs its attention towards other, more unknown designers from all over the world. These designers, as commented by a fashion critic, who are not yet bounded by the requirements of the fashion system through being employed by big brands, actually have the potential and freedom to think and act otherwise. The question then still remains whether these designers can actually explore this innovative potential in the traditional fashion week format that the VFW prescribes.
Despite the similar traditional format of the Amsterdam Fashion Week (AFW), the event has for some editions run Future Generation. This platform allowed young designers to showcase their work via various presentational formats that deviated from the traditional runway shows, such as exhibitions, films and holograms. As such it presented designers an institutionalized space for innovation.
The majority of the interviewees recognize that both fashion weeks in a sense support innovation in the field, be it by showcasing unknown designers or offering young designers the opportunity to present their work in an unconventional format. Despite these innovative facets, the respondents remain critical regarding the actual innovative potential of these fashion weeks given that they so strongly adhere to the sticky parameters of the fashion field which tend to leave little room for disruptive innovation. Hence various field actors question ‘to what extent the format of fashion is relevant in the future.’ (Respondent 2).
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
With regard to the future relevance of film festivals and fashion weeks in the field of cultural production, two main conclusions can be drawn from this empirical research. On the one hand, it has become apparent that festivals do play a crucial role in bringing the field together. By congregating various field actors in space and time, various types of agglomeration benefits are generated which allows for the reproduction of the production system.
First, the empirical findings corroborated that festivals such as fashion weeks and film festivals offer a presentational platform where established field actors can review current work, new trends and newcomers’ abilities (Wu, 2009; Power and Jansson, 2008; Jansson and Hracs, 2018). In line with DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) and Alvarez et al.’s (2005) findings on the reproductive role of hierarchic actors, this study concludes that by valorizing and approving of certain work and creators, powerful field actors reproduce the cultural and market parameters of the field and, thus, actively contribute to maintaining a set of isomorphic pressures which tend to be a combination of intrinsic cultural values (related to Habitus) and more mundane market concerns. The empirical cases have shown that the more prominent field actors, which are relatively more important in the reproduction of the cultural and market parameters, tend to be present at the larger and more renowned festivals such as IDFA. As such, these type of festivals appear to play a bigger part in the reproduction of the system.
Second, such institutionalized gatherings also provide the opportunity for creators to enter the field of cultural production. For these newcomers to obtain a more significant position within this field it is imperative to find a suitable balance between the internal (culture) and external (market) forces at play. While Simona Segre (2005) and Weller (2008) found that these events are consequently a gateway to the (international) cultural market, this study finds that at festivals, however, ‘culture’ seems to be more prominent than ‘market’ and as such, rather than being a certain precondition for a dominant field position, festivals appear to be a relevant starting point for gaining market access and success. Sizeable and renowned festivals with a certain extent of market attachment such as IDFA have proven to be more important in this regard than festivals, such as VIFF, VWF and AFW, that are somewhat short of a connection to the (international) market due to a limited level of prestige.
Third, in spatially and temporally congregating spatially dispersed field actors, festivals allow for the accumulation, bridging and conversion of social, economic and cultural capital. As individual film makers and fashion designers combine these various capitals in social action, as per
Bourdieu, this is an important role for festivals to fulfill as they allow creators to further develop this set of capitals. Through education and previous experience, creators tend to enter the field with mostly cultural capital and relatively less economic and social capital. This study demonstrated that festivals play an important part in providing newcomers with the opportunity to accumulate social capital and, subsequently, economic capital. At festivals with concrete market attachment, such as IDFA, this is more likely to occur. Moreover, through knowledge transfer, the existing base of cultural capital is further enhanced. The empirical case study has found that this accumulation and conversion of capitals occurs notwithstanding the size and prestige of the festival. Even so, the relatively less renowned festivals such as AFW, VFW and VIFF appear to be a great starting point for this endeavor. However, more esteemed festivals such as IDFA appear to increase the chances for newcomers to gain a more prominent position in the field of cultural production, as they can get into contact with current, leading field actors.
Fourth, social action is in turn shaped by an internal force as well, namely Habitus. As festivals are a temporary crystallization of the field, newcomers are provided the opportunity to further develop and internalize Habitus. Key field actors present at these events review, valorize and judge the work of the newcomers based on the isomorphic parameters of the field. Through this peer review and feedback by hierarchic field actors, newcomers can further professionalize their practices according to these vast field expectations and thus the field is reproduced.
From this empirical study it can be concluded that festivals are an important node within the field of cultural production for newcomers as they provide these creators with the opportunity to accumulate and convert capitals, to be recognized by established actors present at these events, and to professionalize their practices. As such, this study bridges the Bourdieu’s action theory and the field of cultural production and the role of festivals in processes of innovation and newcomers. Moreover, it is an attempt to concretize Bourdieu’s action theory in place – as D’Ovidio (2015) called for. The cases in Vancouver and in Amsterdam have, however, demonstrated that the extent
to which newcomers benefit from these externalities is highly dependent on the scale, scope, prestige and orientation of the festival. These key dimensions of difference seem to be related to the cultural identity and profile of the city. Multiple respondents have indicated for example, that both Vancouver and Amsterdam are not ‘known as fashion cities’ which explains why the fashion weeks there are not as prominent. Furthermore, the beneficial externalities are selectively accessible. Fashion weeks charge a substantial amount of money for designers to present their collection on a runway, while film makers have to pay an entry fee to send in their film at a festival. Additionally, knowing actors from within the festival organization or important field actors appears important as well to gain a foothold. Aside from the concrete empirical conclusions on the role of festivals in the field of cultural production and processes of innovation, the wider purpose of this study relates to the recent developments in the cultural industries and the future role of festivals herein.
On the other hand, current internal and external developments put pressure on the organizational dynamics of and the entry barriers to the fields of fashion and film production. External technological developments and processes of digitization have increased the accessibility of the means to make film and design fashion and consequently, the fields have become more democratized and the initial entry barriers have been lowered. Increasing access to the means of film and fashion production does not, however, equate to market access. It appears that for newcomers to gain access to the market, festivals are still an important gateway and hence, in an increasingly democratized field, the position of festivals as gatekeepers seems to be strengthened.
Despite a strengthening of the curational position of festivals, internal pressures might challenge the dominant position of festivals as the actors present at these events are typically pressured to act according to the extant isomorphic parameters of the field. Film makers that speak up about #metoo and fashion designers that deviate from the wasteful and unethical norms of fashion production do not comply to the form of Habitus that is developed at festivals as they stand. More concretely, current developments in the film and fashion industry appear to challenge the
traditional presentational formats of festivals. Although various researchers (e.g. Lampel and Meyer, 2008; Brandellero and Kloosterman, 2010) ascribed festivals the role of bearers of innovation – as these events are a protective institutional environment where creators can experiment without being judged according to isomorphic field pressures and/or market forces – the, in general, traditional format of fashion weeks and film festivals appears to limit innovative potential as current semiotic and material innovations require other presentational forms. The festivals in Amsterdam and Vancouver have proven to find themselves in this paradoxical role where they on the one hand aim to shield innovations from isomorphic pressures, while at the same time reproducing them.
In the fashion industry issues of sustainability and ethical production put increasing pressure the production system as it currently is organized. These issues lead to some field actors innovating the material bases of products and production processes. However, these changes on the product and production process level additionally require different presentational formats and more broad support from dominant field actors. Rather than allowing for designers to present their work in a different presentational format, fashion weeks – certainly those in Amsterdam and Vancouver – appear to be followers instead of trend setters as they continue to stick to the traditional runway shows that reproduce the isomorphic pressures of an unsustainable fashion system.
In the field of film production, rather than issues of sustainability and ethical production, technological developments challenge the current organizational hierarchy of the field and the dominant parameters. The increasing digitization of film and further technological advances have increased the accessibility of film production as well as film consumption. One the one hand, video on demand platforms have decreased the relevance of the theatrical presentation of films as consumers can watch films anywhere and at any time on their portable devices. On the other, film making has become more democratized as technological developments have decreased the costs of the means of film production. This begs the question which actors will be dominant in such a democratized field. Additionally, the technological developments have allowed for film makers to innovate the presentational format and semiotic codes of their final products. This research has
demonstrated that while film festivals often allow for such innovations (e.g. Virtual Reality) to exist, in general they do tend to stick to the traditional format of theatrical presentation.
In abstraction it appears that a tension exists between the isomorphic pressures (related to both Habitus and the market) which reproduce the field in the short term, and a certain level of openness to innovation which will sustain the industries in the long term. By allowing deviations from the mainstream to exist in a temporal space protected from market forces and by financially aiding these initiatives, film festivals and fashion weeks do support innovation in the respective fields of film and fashion production. The extent to which they do so is, however, dependent on the scope, orientation and position within the field. It seems that smaller festivals, lacking market attachment and that have a not so dominant position in the field, do provide a platform for creators to experiment and test out their product. However, for designers and film makers and their innovations to grow further in the field and themselves possibly gain a more dominant position, they should move up to more renowned festivals in the field that have market attachment and where more prominent gatekeepers are present.
Moreover, in the light of the contemporary internal pressures and external developments at play in the fields of fashion and film production, the question arises whether the current institutional configuration is able to deal with these changes. On the level of the festivals a tension is emerging where the current, traditional presentational formats are no longer suitable for the innovative production processes and final products in line with the contemporary issues of sustainability, ethical production and technological change. More so, in the long term, change on the field level is also required as the dominant parameters are no longer deemed suitable in the light of both internal and external developments. So rather than protecting newcomers from isomorphic forces, festivals in their traditional format appear to reproduce the isomorphic pressures of the field. Given this isomorphic reproduction, one can question the extent to which festivals are important in developing and internalizing Habitus. It is clear that festivals do play a crucial role in this, however, in the current setting, it begs to question whether this form of Habitus is sustainable.
So now, festivals seem to be located at a crucial cross-roads where they can either conform to the field, wait for a radical disruption and therein lose their dominant position as bearers of innovation, or to change the seasons and be more supportive of deviating and innovative creators who may change the fields of fashion and film production.
REFERENCES
Abbott, A. (2004), Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences, Contemporary Societies Series.
Alvarez, J. L., C. Mazza, J. S. Pedersen and S. Svejenova (2005), Shielding idiosyncrasy from isomorphic pressures: Towards optimal distinctiveness in European filmmaking, Organization, 12(6), 863-888.
Amsterdam Fashion Week (n.d.), About [Online] Available at: https://fashionweek.nl/about [Accessed on 15 March 2018]
Becker, H. (1982), Art worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Becker, H. S. and A. Pessin (2006), A dialogue on the ideas of “world” and “field”, Sociological Forum, 21, 275–286.
Bourdieu, P. (1996), The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1998)., Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
Brandellero, A. M. and R.C. Kloosterman (2010), Keeping the market at bay: exploring the loci of innovation in the cultural industries, Creative Industries Journal, 3(1), 61-77.
Cappetta, R., P. Cillo and A. Ponti (2006), Convergent Designs in Fine Fashion: An Evolutionary Model for Stylistic Innovation, Research Policy, 35(9), 1273–1290.
Castañer, X. and L. Campos (2002), The Determinants of Artistic Innovation: Bringing in the Role of Organizations, Journal of Cultural Economics, 26(1), 29–52.
Caves, R. E. (2000), Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Harvard University Press.
Chapain, C. and K. Stachowiak (2017), Innovation Dynamic in the Film Industry: The Case of the Soho Cluster in London, Creative Industries in Europe, 65-94.
City of Vancouver (2016), 2015 a record year for television and film in Vancouver [Online] Available at: http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/2015-a-record-year-for-television-and-film-in-vancouver.aspx [Accessed on 15 March 2018]
Creative BC (n.d.), The Creative Clusters of BC – Report Summary, Creative BC: British Columbia, Canada.
DCMS (2015), Creative Industries Economic Estimates January 2015; Statistical Release. London: Department for Culture Media & Sport.
DiMaggio, P. and W. W. Powell (1983), The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields, American sociological review, 48(2), 147-160.
DiMaggio, P. and K. Stenberg (1985), ‘Why do some theatres innovate more than others? An empirical analysis’, Poetics, 14(1–2), 107–22.
D'Ovidio, M. (2015), The field of fashion production in Milan: A theoretical discussion and an empirical investigation, City, Culture and Society, 6(2), 1-8.
D’Ovidio, M. and S. V. Haddock (2010), Fashion and the city-Social interaction and creativity in London and Milan. Brand-building: the creative city. A critical look at current concepts and practices. Firenze University Press, Florence.
Flew, T. and S. Cunningham (2010), Creative industries after the first decade of debate, The information society, 26(2), 113-123.
Florida, R. (2005), Cities and the creative class. Routledge.
Gerring, J. (2006), Case Study Research: Principles and Practices, Cambridge UP, Chapter 5.
Global Fashion Collective (n.d.), About [Online] Available at: http://globalfashioncollective.com/about/ [Accessed on 15 March 2018].
Guntlisbergen, T. (2016), Dit verdient Amsterdam aan de Amsterdam Fashion Week [Online] Available at: https://fashionunited.nl/nieuws/mode/dit-verdient-amsterdam-aan-de-amsterdam-fashion-week/2016070726645 [Accessed on 15 March 2018]
Hirsch, P. M. (2000), Cultural industries revisited, Organization science, 11(3), 356-361.
ISSUU (2017), Jaarverslag IDFA 2016 [Online] Available at: https://issuu.com/idfa/docs/idfa_jaarverslag_2016__lr_ [Accessed on 15 March 2018]
Jansson, J. and B. Hracs (2018), Conceptualizing curation in the age of abundance: the case of recorded music, Environment and Planning A.
Jones, C., M. Lorenzen and J. Sapsed (2015), Creative industries: A typology of change, The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries, 1-51.
Kakiuchi, E. and K. Takeuchi (2014), Creative industries: Reality and potential in Japan. GRIPS Discussion Papers, 14.
Lampel, J. and Meyer, A. (2008), Field-configuring events as structuring mechanisms: How conferences, ceremonies, and trade shows constitute new technologies, industries, and markets, Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1025–1035.
Maskell, P., H. Bathelt and A. Malmberg (2006), Building global knowledge pipelines: The role of temporary clusters, European planning studies, 14(8), 997-1013.
Miles, I. and L. Green (2008), Hidden Innovation in the Creative Industries. London: NESTA.
National Endowment for the Arts (2013), U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and National Endowment for the Arts Release Preliminary Report on Impact of Arts and Culture on U.S. Economy. [Online] Available at: http://arts.gov/news/2013/us-bureau-economic-analysis-and-national-endowment-arts-release-preliminary-report-impact. [Accessed on 3 August 2015].
O+S (2014), Amsterdam in Cijfers 2014, Gemeente Amsterdam, Bureau Onderzoek en Statistiek: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Paleo, I. O. and N. M. Wijnberg (2008), Organizational output innovativeness: A theoretical exploration, illustrated by a case of a popular music festival, Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(1), 3-13.
Patriotta, G. and P. M. Hirsch (2016), Mainstreaming Innovation in Art Worlds: Cooperative links, conventions and amphibious artists, Organization Studies.
Power, D. and J. Jansson (2008), Cyclical clusters in global circuits: Overlapping spaces in furniture trade fairs, Economic Geography, 84(4), 423-448.
Power, D. and A. J. Scott (2004), Cultural industries and the production of culture. Routledge.
Pratt, A. C. and G. Gornostaeva (2009), “The Governance of Innovation in the Film and Television Industry: A Case Study of London, UK”, in: Creativity, Innovation and the Cultural Economy, edited by A. C. Pratt and P. Jeffcutt, 119–136. London: Routledge.
Rekers, J. V. (2016), What triggers innovation diffusion? Intermediary organizations and geography in cultural and science-based industries, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(6), 1058–1075.
Rutten, P. and O. Koops (2014), Monitor creatieve industrie 2014, Stichting iMMovator.
Scott, A. J. (2006), Creative cities: Conceptual issues and policy questions, Journal of urban affairs, 28(1), 1-17.
Scott, A. J. (2017), Urbanization, Work and Community: The Logic of City Life in the Contemporary World, Quality Innovation Prosperity, 21(1), 9-30.
Simona Segre, R. (2005), China and Italy: Fast fashion versus prêt à porter. Towards a new culture of fashion, Fashion Theory, 9(1), 43-56.
Sistema Firjan (2012), Indústria Criativa; Mapeamento da Indústria Criativa no Brasil. Sistema Firjan; Informa, Forma, Transforma.
Statistics Canada (2016), Provincial and Territorial Culture Indicators, 2014 [Online] Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/160511/dq160511a-eng.htm [Accessed on: 15 March 2018]
Stoneman, P. (2009), Soft Innovation: Towards a More Complete Picture of Innovative Change. London: NESTA.
Tourism Vancouver (n.d.), Vancouver International Film Festival (VIFF) [Online] Available at: https://www.tourismvancouver.com/events/festivals-and-events/international-film-festival/
[Accessed on 15 March 2018].
Vancouver Fashion Week (n.d.), Designers [Online] Available at: http://www.vanfashionweek.com/designers/ [Accessed on 15 March 2018].
VIFF (n.d.), About [Online] Available at: https://viff.org/Online/default.asp?doWork::WScontent::loadArticle=Load&BOparam::WScontent::l oadArticle::article_id=89CEB3A8-F0F7-4D06-B684-BA75290DAED7&menu_id=CADF5970- BE2A-4017-93EB-6517B2B2D232&sToken=1%2C93537926%2C5b068f99%2CA9EF47F1-32A6-4663-8FB6-BE6CCDE5DA66%2C9jFLOCznu7zwXt31EhG4MPqxlYM%3D [Accessed on 15 March 2018].
Watson, A. (2013), Running a studio's a silly business’: work and employment in the contemporary recording studio sector, Area, 45(3), 330-336.
Weller, S. (2008), Beyond “global production networks”: Australian fashion week's trans‐sectoral synergies, Growth and Change, 39(1), 104-122.
Wijngaarden, Y., E. Hitters and P. V. Bhansing (2016), ‘Innovation is a dirty word’: contesting innovation in the creative industries, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 1-14.
Wikipedia, Amsterdam Fashion Week (n.d.), Amsterdam Fashion Week [Online] Available at:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Fashion_Week [Accessed 15 March 2018].
Wikipedia, Vancouver Fashion Week (n.d.), Vancouver Fashion Week [Online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Fashion_Week [Accessed on 15 March 2018].
Williams, K., J. Laing and W. Frost (Eds.) (2013), Fashion, design and events. Routledge.
Wu, J. (2009), Internationalizing and Industrializing Fashion: Shanghai International Fashion Culture Festival (SIFCF) Review, Fashion Practice, 1(2), 259-265.
